dust

The casting is amazing, most characters exactly as I pictured them. Always pictured Tyrion a little uglier, but Dinklage does such a great job I can't hold his lack of ugliness against him. And I'm actually enjoying the show's divergence from the books -- means I'll be able to read the last couple (whenever they arrive) without knowing exactly what's going to happen. Possible spoilers for the new season alert.. No one was safe at the beginning, but I think that the longer it draws on, the more certain characters become central. If he knows what certain 'destinations' are going to be, he surely knows which characters are going to be there. They won't always be the ones we expected, but so far, the ones with the most character to offer the story are still around. I mean, the characters who I have enjoyed the most since the beginning -- Tyrion, Arya, Dany, Jon etc -- all seem central to the plot right now. Yeah, they might all die.. but I think most of them will last for the better part of it. After what happened in the latest episode, I expect the Starks to be stirring up some havoc...

I remember it. I enjoyed the majority, but seem to remember being a bit disappointed by the end. A little anti-climactic? Maybe it was ahead of its time. Don't recall hearing about it at all when it came out, but seems like the kind of thing that would be pretty popular nowadays. HBO has done so many excellent shows...The Wire, Rome, Band of Brothers, True Detective, Game of Thrones... but when the opening screen comes on, and I hear that "ahhhhh" sound, I still expect to hear this:

So......anyway........ http://www.nature.com/news/intricate-animal-and-flower-tattoos-found-on-egyptian-mummy-1.19864?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews Again, I'm not claiming that old = 'good'... but I think this is pretty cool. The Eye of Horus between 2 baboons. The Eye is a symbol of protection in the first place, and baboons were apparently associated with Thoth, intelligence, sex, and guarding the dead, among other things.

You are Christian, yes? How do you differentiate between God and Tao? I mean: in "listening to your heart", if you do it well, aren't you doing the 'will of God'? At the very least, I think you might be conflating 'Tao' and 'God'. Tao isn't telling anyone what to do, like God does in many stories, and so Tao can't tell anyone to do the 'right' or the 'wrong' thing. In listening or feeling for the 'right way' to go, am I listening for the right way for me, or the right way in general? And how do I know for sure without also thinking? Where is my 'heart'? When we say "Listen to your heart", aren't we talking about paying attention to a deep feeling in our mind, an instinct or semi-conscious desire? Where is our mind? What's right for me might not be right for a bunch of rats. Or it might be right for us all. Is there always a 'right' decision?

Yeah I realized what you meant by "liberal racism" after reading the Rand quote above (and then I edited my comment). Not that I'm sure about calling it that (liberal racism)...but the general sense of the quote, I agree.

So you do think someone should be free to throw anyone out of their place of business, including on the basis of 'race' or any other perceived group trait? Not just transgender, but white/black/brown, male/female, left/right. Well, I kind of agree. If a man owns a shop, and doesn't want white people in his shop, he shouldn't be forced to accept them. We shouldn't be forcing legislation in essentially private places like that. And in such a case, the person is only hurting their own business anyway by denying custom, so... fuck 'em. Such a business is unlikely to ever become widespread enough to make much difference. Not to mention that the denied party should probably not be upset that they can't buy ice cream from a racist, and that anyone who disagrees with the policy can also deny the racist business custom. Not just groups of people. If the 'right to life' is inherent, we should be arresting the planet. The universe! Earthquakes, floods, forest fires, ice ages... Nature has no respect for our right to life!

I hope we can try to worry less over precise definitions and get to what's really concerning us. The meanings, rather than the words themselves. You object to racism. Cool, me too. You have already said that a person should be free to send another person out of his place of business if he so chooses; that if we force people to accept everyone, not allowing them to choose who they allow in their shop, we are impinging on their liberty, right? How do you reconcile these things? If a black man sends a white man out of his shop based on the fact that he is white, do you object? And if a 'Christian' man sends a transgender man out based on the fact that he is transgender, do you object? I, for one, if I owned a shop, would like the legal right to be able to throw anyone out I so chose. If I decided that I hated brown people, or women, or carpenters, or simply didn't like the look of a particular individual, I would want the legal right to be able to say "Get out, you are not welcome." But I would not expect this right. I do not expect that anyone be thrown out of a place of business, or anywhere else that is open to the public, on the whim of the owner, unless that person can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be a threat. If the owner decides he doesn't want someone in there, there must be a reason. Unless he knows the other person, the reason is generally going to be based on some exterior marker. If it is 'race', we object. If it is transgenderism, why do we not object?

I'm not making it about anything, only using examples of how discrimination can obviously be violent in itself. No. I am saying that people should not be forced away because of the unconsidered opinions of others. If you own a restaurant and don't want me in there, that's fine. But if you let me in and say I must sit with my "own kind", is that fine? Not a straw man, an extreme example of discrimination in deed. In this instance the discrimination and act of murder are inseparable. If I accidentally shoot you dead, I have violated your "right to life". If I purposefully shoot you dead because you are transgender or black or Muslim or whatever, I have equally violated this "right to life". The difference is intent. Nothing to do with minorities or majorities. Groups against groups, people against people, no matter how large or small in number.

There is discrimination in thought, and there is discrimination in deed. It is possible to deny someone the freedom to do a thing based on one's own prejudice against them. Your liberty doesn't give you the right to deny me my liberty. The liberty of someone full of hatred doesn't trump the liberty of someone they hate. Many people of various 'races' around the world and through history would agree that discrimination in deed can impinge on one's liberty. The simple freedom, for example, to exist in the same space as people of other 'races' -- eating in the same space in a cafeteria, drinking from the same water fountain, sitting in the same space on a bus, etc. Not to mention the freedom to not be burned on a crucifix. It is sad that he ended up so sad. I hope he was happy for at least some of the time.

The 'right' to discriminate, or the 'right' to not be discriminated against for something that affects nobody but you? Free thought, free speech, and free action should be unimpeachable as long as they harm nobody else. If your speech leads someone to harm me, I reserve the 'right' to cut you both down.

I would like to see you try. Honestly, I don't think you could possibly come up with a cogent argument for the case that cutting down on animal agriculture (which is the only thing being suggested) would lead to more destruction, pollution, death, etc. It would be interesting to see an attempt. Even years ago when I was obsessed with meat I wouldn't have gone that far! You keep suggesting that the above facts/figures are probably wrong and biased and that there's surely other info out there proving the exact opposite conclusion... yet I have yet to see such convincing information of the infallibility of animal agriculture, especially from leading international organizations such as the UN, ocean-protection organizations such as this, or respected magazines such as this, etc etc etc. So, what? Nobody ever does anything because it's impossible to have all the information about a thing? Why is the FAO lying? How are the pure numbers I posted from the USDA a lie? Why would the USDA invent statistics that, for example, show how much water animal agriculture uses? http://www.ers.usda.gov/ImageGen.ashx?image=/media/1914367/ewpie.png (note that the corn, sorghum, forage, and protein of the soybean are all used for animal feed) My health has not changed, I feel no physical difference. I continue to grow stronger and more flexible, and I've lost some fat and gained a little muscle mass, but would attribute that to a better movement/workout/stretching practice beginning around the same time. Almost everyone I know eats a lot of meat, and I find myself socializing less. It's difficult to go to a friend's birthday celebration when the chosen restaurant offers no veggie options except for mushroom soup. I feel judgement from meat eaters -- whether imagined or not I don't always know, though I know that many of my less close family and friends are very much anti-vegetarian. And, gradually, I feel more and more antipathy towards people who eat meat and refuse to consider the potential issues surrounding it. As many are quick and willing to note, vegans aren't often much better, though I don't know any in person so it's harder to feel antipathy towards them. Taste-wise, I enjoy my meals as much as before, possibly more since I lost the "meat tastes better" dogma and discovered that plants are generally responsible for the tastier meat dishes anyway. I no longer feel the nudging guilt that was starting to grow with each bite of a dead cow's backside -- this is good. The smell of certain meats cooking has become slightly nauseating. I've discovered a number of foods that I probably wouldn't have bothered with a year ago. It's no more reliable, no more provable than the data you mention above. I could easily lie about all sorts of health benefits and extra energy and how happy it's made me (and so could someone who eats meat). I do my best to be honest, and in all honesty I think that most people, vegan or otherwise, who claim these kind of things are full of shit... And there's been no fact-dueling thus far, has there? Nobody is willing to post contradictory information...

Heh. Perhaps I should have linked to an example... though we do all have the same internet at our fingertips, I believe... Easy and perfectly acceptable to start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism which leads us to studies like this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402034/ and this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17765230 The thing is, we still don't know very much about genetics in most respects, and relatively few studies have been done in this area. There are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of studies on nutrition and exercise, and still no universal conclusions about how much protein one should consume or whether or not coffee is healthy. How much less must we be destined to agree on a topic like transgender/sexualism...

I don't know that the "Of course" is necessary. It seems to you (or me), in most cases, something happening purely in the mental realm, perhaps. But there are biological indicators in many cases, and the research is ongoing. We should not judge before all the evidence is in. I earlier mentioned that 'feelings' seem to be the primary explanation for trans people of all sorts, and that there is rarely a full biological explanation invoked. But just because someone feels something, and has no biological evidence for the feeling, does not necessarily mean that there is not a biological reason for the feeling.

Right... and he couldn't be partisan (religious, dickhead) or simply ignorant of all the facts? You present one article by one man and because he claims to have experience, everyone on the site must agree with him? There are no other options? No other experts who do indeed believe that surgery is often the answer?

Yeah, I noticed that the whole website is devoted to religious bullshit and various prejudices. But I do think some points in the article are worth discussion. The thing that holds me back from unquestioning personal acceptance of transgenderism is: I've yet to hear someone explain it in purely biological terms -- it always comes down to a 'feeling'. There are humans who identify as all sorts of things, including feeling that they are actually cats, and others who feel that they weren't born the 'right way', including a woman who felt she should have been born blind. I watched a really disturbing story on YT about a grown man who decided he wanted to be a little girl, and a couple later 'adopted' him as a part of a sex fetish. Disturbing... yet the "documentary" that portrayed him left out all the stuff about the sex fetish, focusing only on the "touching" transgender aspect of the situation (a little googling after watching it unraveled some nasty details about the whole thing). I find all this bizarre, and it seems pretty clear in my mind that many 'body dysphorics' or 'gender dysphorics' have encountered some kind of trauma or other psychological obstacle -- rather than being born dissatisfied, they have become dissatisfied. Body dysphoria, then, might lie in the same vein as body dysmorphia -- might be preventable, or might be dealt with in ways that do not lead down a slope of acceptance (of potentially preventable psychological issues). And so I wonder if the same can be said for some transgender people. The topic is not as clear-cut as either side claims, I fear.

The title of this thread is indeed a problem. But the article highlights some interesting points. And either way, I think conversation should be encouraged, not stifled as some would have it -- as long as we all remember that we have no basis for judging individuals whom we have never met and about whom we know very little.

http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/lsan0415.pdf Total red meat production for the United States totaled 47.4 billion pounds in 2014 Commercial cattle slaughter during 2014 totaled 30.2 million head Commercial hog slaughter totaled 106.9 million head etc If you go to http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/feed-grains-database/feed-grains-yearbook-tables.aspx and download the spreadsheet titled "Recent (contains latest 5-10-15 years of data)" you will note the following: Table 1--Corn, sorghum, barley, and oats: Planted acreage, harvested acreage, production, yield, and farm price Corn -- 2015/16 -- 88 million acres -- 80 million acres harvested -- 13,601 million bushels Table 20--U.S. corn and sorghum imports (bushels) Corn total -- 2015/16 -- 49,639,157 bushels Table 31--Corn: Food, seed, and industrial use (million bushels) (i.e. not for animal feed) 2015/16 -- 6,620 = 7,030,639,157 bushels of corn fed to livestock 6,620,000,000 bushels of corn used in HFCS, starch, alcohol, cereal products, etc ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e03.pdf As well as livestock respiration, carbon is introduced into the atmosphere from the sector through: burning fossil fuel to produce mineral fertilizers used in feed production; methane release from the breakdown of fertilizers and from animal manure; land-use changes for feed production and for grazing; land degradation; fossil fuel use during feed and animal production; fossil fuel use in production and transport of processed and refrigerated animal products Global annual input of carbon into atmosphere (billion tonnes): Fossil fuels: 4 Soil oxidation/erosion: 61 Respiration: 50 Deforestation: 2 All of these are heavily influenced by livestock.

You've taken one 'factlet' from many and tried to drive the discussion towards one of the countries where you think it might not apply. That's not an honest rebuttal. While it is true that in China the majority of meat is consumed domestically, its inclusion on the list is somewhat misleading. If you look at the numbers on the table "Country ranking based on number of stunted children", China comes in at 4th in the world. Pretty bad... but its population might have something to do with that. Top 5 by stunting prevalence (%): India: 48 Nigeria: 41 Pakistan: 44 China: 10 Indonesia: 36 China's under-5 mortality rate (15 per 1,000 live births) is not amazing, but also not comparable to a whole number of other nations.

I contradicted someone earlier today when she called me 'a vegetarian'. I'm not, when all things are considered, unconditionally opposed to humans killing other animals and eating them, and I'd do it myself if necessary for survival or if, for example, there were too many wild boar in the neighbourhood and they needed culling. I've no problem with noting that meat is not poisonous, that a little does no harm and indeed has always been a convenient/efficient source of certain nutrients. What I can't admit -- because it's not true -- is that meat is necessary any longer for the majority of people, or that it is not doing harm to a lot of shit. Indeed, I'm just passing them on, and in the other thread in which I posted the same list ('sobering facts') I noted that many of them are probably arguable. I also noted, though, that even if the presenters of the facts are terribly biased and each figure has been doubled, it would on the whole still paint a pretty awful picture of things... As far as bias... I don't pretend to know you, but I would suggest that in general we are all exposed to such a meat-positive culture -- family life, peer groups, television, advertising, etc -- that it becomes necessary to us that someone prove beyond a doubt that animal agriculture might be harmful before we even consider the idea that eating meat might not be a good thing. That is bias. The fact that meat, and the modern agricultural system, is so accepted among modern humans doesn't mean that being meat-friendly is not a biased position -- on the contrary, the most biased people in any situation are usually the ones who continue along a path without ever considering another option, which is the case for the majority of meat-eaters (in my experience). (Please be aware that I'm not saying that you have never considered the other options -- only that most people never do, that most people are biased towards a meaty lifestyle based on little to no consideration of negatives & alternatives.) You say yourself that you are turned off from even considering the potential validity of these facts/figures. Aside from the fact that many of them come from international organizations, not animal rights activists -- isn't that bias? I'm not pretending to be that kind of expert, but some fairly straightforward web searching gives an idea of the validity of many of the facts. I'm going to put some stuff in another post.

So far, not too bad. As a starting point for ontological and epistemological discussion I find few problems. But there are assumptions from the beginning that belie a truly unbiased account going forward. If a human wishes to function in a certain environment it requires a philosophy. Humans have progressed to a conceptual existence but we are not born with concepts, we must learn them. It is conceivable that a human grows up like Mowgli, without contact with 'developed' human culture, and so without language. If a human can function in certain environments without language, and therefore without anything more than the most vague 'concepts', it would be no more conceptual in nature than a chimp or a panda, with no more capacity or responsibility for 'choice'. Let's say that we do all have language, do all have choice. You present a false dilemma, offering only 2 very much black-and-white options -- but neither option is entirely true. You say that the subconscious choice is "thrown together by chance" -- but so is the conscious one. Everything that happened before your own existence was out of the control of you as an entity, and most things that continue to happen you are unaware of and unable to control. Your "disciplined process of thought" cannot possibly escape chance. And you cannot possibly escape your subconscious. But we also cannot escape our programmed nature -- the way we have evolved to behave, as a species and as individuals. And we shouldn't necessarily want to, in my opinion. Our 'animal nature' has a lot to offer.

Indeed yes, it seems perhaps to imply, if not conclude, that Westerners are the only ones eating the meat and that they (we) are responsible for most starving kids in poorer countries. Of course this isn't true. Maybe it could be worded more honestly. But if you look at what it actually says, without inferring anything, it is only that the global system of buying and selling currently proceeds in such a way that perfectly good land is given over to livestock and their feed crops in countries where people are unable to afford such produce (beef, pork, etc) and end up unable to get fed properly from the land on which they live, when the land could be given over to just producing human feed crops, which would result in more crops at more affordable prices available for human consumption. Yeah, this is often true. A lot of ethical animal rights people want meat to be unhealthy and damaging so that there are more reasons not to farm animals, and will always twist things to demonize meat even if it's proven to be the best thing ever. Same on the other side. But many veggies are, in my opinion, grounded in reality. My point in bringing up this old thread again was to point out how my perspective has changed from that of a meat eater to vegetarian based on honest inquiry. Looking at my earlier posts in this thread, I was becoming anti-meat but still unable to stop eating it. I might look back further in my posts because I'm sure that I'll have stuff from 2014/early 2015 with overtly pro-meat content in them. edit: http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/37063-super-enzyme-serrapeptase-and-lower-dantian/?p=596819 Yah..didn't trust vegans.. My sister was veggie as a teenager, but other than that I grew up in a heavily carnivorous environment -- almost all my friends and family still eat meat daily. A friend and I used to go to KFC after the gym and buy a whole bucket of chicken each, often competing to see who could eat it fastest. It might sound 'superior', but my attitude has changed in the last year because at some point I was able to let go of the years of habit and presumption and admit that maybe I was wrong, maybe meat isn't necessary, maybe the cons outweigh the pros, etc. I carried on eating meat for months after that though. Most of the figures in the above 'factlets' are supported by entities such as the FAO (United Nations), Worldwatch, and various other groups focused on sustainability, etc, and a couple are even supported by the USDA. They are not taken from teenage vegan blogs or PETA. I'd say they tend towards an honest, investigative line. Only a few even mention the fact of livestock slaughter, and I don't think any of them mention animal rights...

After posting some facts in the 'sobering facts' topic, I searched the forums and found this topic again. Reading through my own comments from just 8-9 months ago ("I do eat meat", "mmm crackling", etc) ...well, it's interesting to see how my perspective has changed I've yet to watch Cowspiracy but many of the facts featured on their website bear repeating. I know many members are unwilling to engage in discussions about animal agriculture / eating meat / etc partly because of the infernally "superior" attitude of many vegans/vegetarians, but.. well... that doesn't seem a very good reason to ignore interesting, crucial, potentially life-changing information. Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32 billion tons of CO2 per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Even without fossil fuels, we will exceed our 565 gigatonnes CO2e limit by 2030, all from raising animals. Growing feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of water in the US. 1,000 gallons of water are required to produce 1 gallon of milk. Livestock or livestock feed occupies 1/3 of the earth’s ice-free land. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction. 1/3 of the planet is desertified, with livestock as the leading driver. A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people. For every 1 pound of fish caught, up to 5 pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as by-kill. Animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of Amazon destruction. 26 million rainforest acres (10.8m hectares) have been cleared for palm oil production. 70 billion farmed animals are reared annually worldwide. More than 6 million animals are killed for food every hour. 82% of starving children live in countries where food is fed to animals, and the animals are eaten by western countries. 1.5 acres can produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based food. 1.5 acres can produce 375 pounds of meat. Each day, a person who eats a vegan diet saves 1,100 gallons of water, 45 pounds of grain, 30 sq ft of forested land, 20 lbs CO2 equivalent, and one animal’s life.

Indeed, I always feel that one should never use absolutes. Sorry.

Well, we're clearly not going to start agreeing any time soon. But.. The notion that the individual 'self' is an illusion, that the self does not end at the brain, or the skin, but essentially extends to the entire universe, is entirely compatible with a material belief system. The notion that we are all part of the One is, if anything, strengthened by modern science. Existence is change -- "annihilation" need not enter in to it. I know you intend this topic for discussion of similarities between sacred places and other themes in ancient Eastern and Western traditions, but I see no reason to throw modernity out of the window. The chosen path is to progress spiritually. If you say it is the meaning of your life, it is the meaning of your life -- a meaning that you have chosen. A sage surely realizes that there is a choice.

OK, I can agree that a lot of people think this way, but I'd still stop short of calling it nihilism. Why not existentialism? We've realized that God is not there, that there is no purpose or meaning, but we try to rise above it and find our own...? Either way, does there need to be a belief in the 'meaning of life' or similar notion for one to practice or interpret Buddhism or Daoism? Do all of the Eastern religions/philosophies say "The meaning of life is ... " ? I suppose the reason I'm having trouble might be because I don't see these things as "rotten" or otherwise problematic. I'd suggest that existentialism/relativism/materialism/etc and many Eastern traditions are not mutually exclusive. If one is free to choose their meanings, such traditions can provide solid frameworks for exploration and spiritual growth in ways that traditional/ancient Western culture can't provide. (Spiritual in the sense of psychological, conscious, human, etc, if not in the sense of a literal spirit.)